Cornell Lecture by General: The New World Order
February 21, 2013 4 Comments
Here is a general speaking at Cornell on the New World Order, which many of you still have no clue about. The general speaks to the idiot audience that also has no clue.
From Theology to Geopolitics and Economics
January 20, 2012 9 Comments
Oswald Spengler's classic, The Decline of the West
By: Jay
I am frustrated. For years, I have dedicated a large portion of my time to research, and am constantly lectured by the clueless on topics of which they are clueless. This is especially true if you are in academic circles. However, I understand that this is part of learning the world and how it works. Nevertheless, though I spent years studying theology and religion, which was then supplemented with philosophy and history, I have branched out into espionage and tradecraft, geo-politics, race and economics. The last few years have been spent immersing myself in those last four, and to be perfectly honest, I am particularly adept at gaining mastery of subjects very quickly. I would in no way claim to have mastered these last four, as they are immense subjects. Within three years, though, I have already read several key works in all four, and so I’m comfortable discussing them openly.
The point of this post is not to brag: I don’t have to. The point here is to mention that, as a remedy to frustration and as a means of growing in knowledge and interaction on more pertinent subject matter than merely films (though the film analyses will continue), I’ll be discussing new issues. I am going to write more freely on my thoughts on a variety of issues, expanding that title “analysis.” I do not at all profess mastery of these subjects, but I am becoming fluent in them. On top of that, I am sick of being lectured by those who haven’t even branched out of their own narrow field of study. All things are related, and all these subjects, as well as life experience, are interrelated. Modern education is fragmented and no longer teaches a “worldview,” which was the whole meaning behind the word “university,” as Newman wrote. Because all things are related, analysis should therefore include as much as one can fluent write about.
As I dove into geo-politics and race, I began with standard libertarian and conservative works back as far as 12 years ago, but in the last three years branched out into much more technical and numerous classical works on statecraft and civilization studies. Aldous Huxley was instructive, insofar as The Perennial Philosophy makes lucid the kind of globalist philosophy he envisions. Also relevant was Hegel’s work on the state, which point to a monolithic positive theory of absolutism wherein the individual is an atom of the whole to such a degree that personhood is not accorded to those outside the state. Philosopher Charles Taylor has some good assessments of Hegel’s political theory, which can be seen as the precursor to modern absolutist fascism, as well as Marx’s statist stage of communism. Marx was, of course, a Young Hegelian. Collectivism seems ingrained in the mass man. Indeed, Mussolini wrote defining “fascism” in regard to this “positive” action on the part of the state (as opposed to the Enlightenment liberal idea of the state’s existence being “negative,” merely restraining forces): Read more of this post
The Absurdity of Liberalism: Response to Chris Hedges
November 7, 2010 9 Comments
If gender's a social construct, why do we need parties based around it?
Liberalism ends in anarchy, or to avoid anarchy, imposes its will on an unliberal world. But by imposing its will, it ceases to be liberal, and is become despotic. -Santayana (paraphrase)
By: Jay
This past week both Chris Hedges and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts spoke of the end of liberalism – that is no, or never has really been, a true left-wing movement in America. I think saying there never has been goes too far, but it illustrates the ever-prevalent fallacies and contradictions that are staring everyone in the face – liberalism doesn’t really exist. It’s a fantasy. Let’s examine Chris Hedges’ essay and see why this is. Hedges argues in “The Phantom Left” as follows:
“The loss of a radical left in American politics has been catastrophic. The left once harbored militant anarchist and communist labor unions, an independent, alternative press, social movements and politicians not tethered to corporate benefactors. But its disappearance, the result of long witch hunts for communists, post-industrialization and the silencing of those who did not sign on for the utopian vision of globalization, means that there is no counterforce to halt our slide into corporate neofeudalism. This harsh reality, however, is not palatable. So the corporations that control mass communications conjure up the phantom of a left. They blame the phantom for our debacle. And they get us to speak in absurdities.”
First of all, this assumes that the loss of a “radical left” is a good thing. Hedges even cites a loss of communism and independent press, as if these were truly organic, natural and neutral institutions that arose to combat the purportedly oppressive bourgeoisie. In other words, he appears to still believe the classical Marxist and leftist dream – that man is not fallen and basically good at heart, simply in need of more education and more government programs. The big fat pink (or red) elephant staring everyone in the face is that ” there are smart people who understand worldviews and the power of giving people a narrative to believe in. The corporate elite created communism as a way to attain real assets through a central bank that taxes the so-called wealthy. In other words, Hedges blames the very thing that created communism and anarchism as tools for useful idiots. Having a liberal pontificate and tell us about the ills of our culture is like having Spongebob lecture us on marine biology.
Why is this? Because liberalism is a fantasy. It’s a life of contradiction – the liberal educates himself and ascends the left power structure and becomes an accomplished author and takes the “critical stance” to use the Frankfurt School’s lingo, and snobbishly engages in moral platitudes. This is pure contradiction and double-mind. Why? Because liberalism is born of pure relativism. Relativism says there are no objective morals or standards, and so every man “follows the dictates of his own heart” (Jer. 23:17). Every liberal knows he accepts this worldview and that this is his fundamental operating principle. But no one really lives this way. Does Hedges live in the ghetto? I doubt it. Shouldn’t a true liberal who believes in radical egalitarianism and equality move to the poorest, most crime-ridden neighborhoods and properly educate the thugs? None of these leftists do that, and thus they live a fantasy. It’s fact that some people are better than others, and can perform tasks better than others. it’s a fact that some people are more talented than others at certain things. But liberalism cannot face this, and so, because of envy, must try to level the playing field. Read more of this post
Glenn Beck Shows 30 Rock’s Communist Symbolism
April 10, 2010 1 Comment
And he’s spot on here. Props to Peter Parker for this one.
